Description:
Radical Feminism is called so because they believe in the radical restructuring of society in order to remove male supremacy in all social and economic context. Radical Feminism believe that men are systematically and purposefully privileged while women are oppressed and dominated using social, institutional, and legal systems [2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14 20]. They call this oppression ‘patriarchy’ [18].

They argue that the oppression of women is the foundation form from which all other oppression, such as race, are based [14, 15, 17].

It tries to challenge patriarchy by changing current social norms and institutions, rather than through legal change, including the complete dismantling of gender roles, going as far as to remove the concept of gender entirely. This includes opposing the sexual objectification of women and raising awareness of gendered issues that predominately (but not uniquely) affect women. Their opposing to sexual objectification often makes them sex-negative, standing against pornography and prostitution [3, 15, 16, 17, 20].

Radical Feminists tend to be more extreme than other versions of Feminism [2, 13], often being the centre of controversy and this has caused the perception of them to be the dominate voice of feminism since the 1970s (although Intersectional Feminism is growing within the media coverage) [0].

Although some Radical Feminist admit that gender is a biological one, they try to remove it as a social concept [13, 19]. Radical Feminists recognise that childbirth is the predominate cause of their oppression and actively seek technology to allow artificial wombs in order to free women from this biological commitment. This creates a tendency for them to be very negative towards motherhood, seeing it as a key cause of the oppression of women and going so far as to portray the traditional heterosexual family structure as part of the oppression of women [3, 11, 14, 18].

However, recently Radical Feminists have been influenced by Intersectional Feminism and some now believe that gender is a social construct. This hasn't made much impact on their goal of removing gender as a social concept but provides additional support for that goal [0].

Similar to Marxist forms of Feminism, Radical Feminism takes a collective approach, rather than an individualist one, to the oppression of women, making them a form of Outcome Feminism [0]. Radical and Marxist also share the ideology that the current social and economic system is unacceptable, however Radical Feminists are not inherently anti-capitalist as Socialist Feminism is. However, Radical Feminism is sometime referred to as a form of Marxist Feminism [18].

Definition of Equality:
Equality of Outcome for the Collective.

Although some agree that gender is biological, other see it as a social construct. Either way, they wish to remove the social concept of treating them differently by removing the idea of gender.Root cause of problems:
Patriarchy, which is defined as the purposeful systematic oppression of women by men.

Dates:
Radical Feminism is part of 2nd Wave Feminism, becoming dominate from the 1970s [7].

Examples:
Andrea Dworkin
Catherine MacKinnon
Kate Millett

History:
Radical Feminism became popular in the 1970s [7] and is considered to be a form of 2nd Wave Feminism. Due to their extreme tactics they were perceived to have a greater impact than previous incarnations such as Liberal and Libertarian Feminism, which increased their popularity [0].

Their ideological history is based in a collective, Marxist, grouping rather than an individual one.

Critique:
Radical Feminism is seen as the most extreme form of feminism [13], with the highly emotional claims that all men are purposely oppressing all women they are often seen as ‘man haters’. They often have a very negative view of men as a whole, causing the group to be extremely sexist against men, to the point of misandry [11, 18].

By placing all men as oppressors and perpetrators, and all women as oppressed and victims Radical Feminism essentially disregards individual male and female victims of individual women [17]. This creates a problematic situation when simultaneously claiming that the concept of gender should be removed, while also insisting that women can only be victims [0].

By discounting female perpetrators, this essentially tells women they have no agency in the current system, and should not face the consequences of their actions by taking personal responsibility for their choices, with Radical Feminists often blaming men for the crimes of women [0].

Postcolonial Feminism is critical of Western forms of feminism in general, including Radical Feminism, for claiming all women suffer the same oppression rather than taking local culture, experience and history into account [16].

Intersectional Feminism has criticized Radical Feminism of excluding the oppression of race [19].

By Radical Feminists accepting that gender is influenced by biology, yet also insisting that there should be equal outcomes within society it makes a confusing statement about the impact of the choices of men and women, especially within a free market. Although Radical Feminists wish to tear down current society, it is unclear what they wish to replace it with [0].

The very extreme nature of Radical Feminism and the resulting fanatical support put the ideology at risk of being labelled a religion, with indoctrination tactics being employed to convert people to their cause [0].

Radical Feminists have been accused of having an emotionally driven ideology with no basis in reality and lack intellectual scholarly debate [17].

There is a lot of infighting within Radical Feminism, with small sub-groups splintering off (see below).

Allies and enemies:
Due to the very extreme nature of Radical Feminism’s ideology it spurs intense responses, both for and against.

Radical Feminist accuse men of the deliberate enslavement of women, which creates a lot of tension between Radical Feminists, and men and women who support men and do not believe in the intentional oppression of women by men.

Women who choose to fulfil traditional family roles and become mothers and dependant on their partners are told by Radical Feminists they are contributing to the problem. This creates animosity between them.

Radical Feminist believe that Liberal, Liberation and Egalitarian Feminists contribute to the concept of patriarchy by wishing to work within the current system, rather than tearing down the current establishment and creating something new.

Radical-Libertarian Feminism
Radical-Libertarian Feminism is the belief that women should reject all forms of femininity and become more androgynous [4].

Radical-Cultural Feminism
Radical-Cultural Feminism is the belief that women should embrace all forms of femininity, as this is inherently superior to masculinity [4].

Radical Lesbian Feminism
Rising out of political lesbianism, Radical Lesbian Feminism believes that lesbianism is an act of resistance against the status quo of heterosexuality. They claim that heterosexuality is not only enforced, but is violent and oppressive towards women [9, 20], with growing academic theories on the subject [8].

Idealist Radical/ Biological Feminism
Idealist Radical/ Biological Feminists believe the biological differences between men and women make it impossible for them to understand each other, with emphasis on men being incapable of understanding women and thus being inappropriately suited to represent them in areas such as politics [14].

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF)
One of the key areas of conflict within Radical Feminism is the Trans community. While some Radical Feminists support the Trans-gender community, others accuse them of perpetuating patriarchy gender norms and claim it to be incompatible with the Radical Feminist idea that gender should be removed from society completely and attempt to exclude transgender individuals from their organisations, women’s spaces, and female facilities [20, 37]. These are called Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERF), and they believe that gender is binary, innate, and immutable meaning that a male-to-female trans person should eternally be consider male, and to call them female is to encourage a delusion or mental illness [37].

Sex Work Exclusionary Radical Feminist (SWERF)
Sex Work Exclusionary Radical Feminists (SWERF) consider any form of sex work such as pornography or prostitution, even done by choice, as incompatible with the ideals of equality and perpetuating the oppression of women by men [38].

Description:
Socialist Feminism is a sub-type of Marxist Feminism, believing that capitalism is the root cause of the patriarchal oppression of women [14, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 34, 34]. However, they do not believe that gender is the bases of all other oppression like Radical Feminism does .They specifically call for a socialist/ communist economy, believing this will end all oppression but especially the oppression of women [22, 23, 24, 28]. They use the state, even if it is a patriarchal one, to enforce this [27].

This takes a collective view of society, rather than an individual one, and includes other forms of oppression such as race [23, 24, 26, 28], however they also believe that the oppression is mutually reinforcing, and that ending male supremacy is the key to social justice [24].

Socialist Feminism believes that gender is a social construct, and that biology does not influence choices [23, 24]. Due to this, some Socialist Feminists are keen to work with men to achieve their aims [23], however, others see the oppression based on biology and thus men and women as natural enemies [27].

They have observed that women tend to derive their status from their husbands, rather than be independently considered and believe that women should become financially independent [9, 24].

One method Socialist Feminists have suggested of providing women with finance independence is to pay them for their current traditional duties by hiring a professional nanny and housekeeper [7, 24].Definition of Equality:
Equality of Outcome for the Collective.

Gender is a social construct.Root cause of problems:
Capitalism.

Dates:
Part of 2nd Wave Feminism, popular from the 1970s.Examples:
Shulamith Firestone [29]

Radical Women (RW) [25]

History:
The term ‘Socialist Feminism’ was first used in 1972 by the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union [25], around the same time Radical Feminism split off [26] creating two distinct streams of Feminism within the 2nd Wave.Critique:
The same critiques of Marxism Feminism can be applied here.

Allies and enemies:
Although Radical and Socialist Feminism agree that society needs to be fundamentally destroyed and replaces, they disagree that gender is the primary source of oppression, with Socialist Feminism accepting that there are other forms of oppression at work, and Racial insisting that gender is the original, fundamental oppression that all others are based on [30].

Edit 18/06/2016: Edited and added the section about some Radical Feminists believe gender is a social construct. Also removed Anarcha-feminism from the Radical section and place it in the 'other' section of feminism.

Description:
This form of feminism is often associated to Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality Feminism [3, 12, 17]. It focuses more on institutions, government, law and education with targeted campaigns such as equal pay, ending job sex segregation, better working conditions, abortion, domestic violence, but does so within the current system of patriarchy and capitalism [2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 18, 19].

However, Liberal Feminism has some distinct differences from Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality Feminism. The seeds of the concept that gender is a social construct began here.

Liberal Feminism began to see men and women as classes in their own right. They began to see the collective impact of society on the genders and started to believe that women have the same wants and drivers as men, and that men should start to do more domestic chores [1, 3]. This lead to the belief that men and women are socialized into their roles, leading to negative stereotypes of women which discouraged and barred them from being treated as equals and influencing women’s choices [4, 6, 14, 15]. Their answer was for women to break from their traditional gender roles within the home, become educated, and get a job to support themselves [9].Definition of Equality:
Equality of opportunity for the individual.

Gender is more of a social construct, than a biological one.Root cause of problems:
The socialization of gender roles within society.

Dates:
From 1830s. Liberal Feminism spans the gap between 1st and 2nd Wave Feminism, with ideology seated in both [0].

Examples:
Ms. Magazine

National Organisation for Women (NOW)

History:
Born out of, or at the same time as Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality, it sowed the seeds of gender as a social construct. This concept was built on by Radical and Social Feminisms before Intersectional Feminism took the concept to the extreme [0].

Critique:
Due to the similarities of the focus on individual choice, Liberal Feminism suffers many of the same critique that Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality Feminism had. In addition it was asserted that this breeds a lack of community and makes it hard to see the underlying social structures and values that disadvantages women as a collective [6].

Many of the criticisms stem from Liberal Feminism’s focus on legal chance and not trying to break down society and fighting the patriarchy [2, 4, 6], with the patriarchy being linked to capitalism and thus Liberal Feminists were seen to undermine the efforts of the Marxists who sought to improve the conditions of the working class [4]. Liberal Feminist are seen as reformist rather than revolutionary [19].

Liberal Feminists encouraged women to become more like men, this was not only seen as insulting the traditional roles of women [16] but was actually supporting the very oppression of patriarchy [11].

One of the main critiques is Liberal Feminism’s focus on white, middle-class, Western struggles, and did not include other races, classes, cultures [4, 6, 8, 9, 16].

The final point is the departure from its roots. Historically Liberal Feminism concentrated on equality of opportunity, however more recently there has been an idea that in order for women to be equal, they must be given special treatment and privileges [7].Allies and enemies:
Liberal Feminism has fallen by the wayside, with exceptionally few modern individuals identifying with this specific brand of feminism [17]

Due to attempting to working within the current social structure rather than destroying it, and not being perceived as inclusive enough Liberal Feminism is at odds Social, Radical and Intersectional Feminism.

Even, to a lesser extent, with Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality Feminists because Liberal Feminists argue that women should break from their traditional roles, rather than be left to choose for themselves.

This blame on society, and discouraging traditional gender roles discourages women who wish to be homemakers from supporting this brand of feminism [0].

Name: Marxist Feminism
Alternative names: Outcome Feminism

Description:
Marxist Feminism is a major overarching category that many other forms of feminism such as Radical, Socialist [23, 26] and Intersectional Feminism [0] fit into. It follows from the teachings of Karl Marx [23].

Marxist feminists equate capitalism with the patriarchy, and thus women’s oppression. In order for women to be equal to men capitalism, private property, and the current economy must be radically restructured into a communists/ socialist model, including paying women for domestic work they currently do for free [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27].

This was the rise of the collective view of women [22], rather than the individual one that had gone on before.

Definition of Equality:
Equality of outcome for the collective, especially through the economy.Root cause of problems:
Capitalism, and the society that supports it.

Dates:
From 1884 (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Fredrick Engel) [21]. Became popular from the 1950s and 60s in 2nd Wave Feminism [0].

Examples:
Many Socialist and Radical Feminists have their routes in Marxist Feminism.

History:
Based on the theories of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels from the 1840s, women’s role was linked to feminism by Frederick Engels in his book ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State’ in 1884 [21].

Liberal Feminism had already sowed the seeds that gender is a social construct and Marxist Feminists developed the idea from an individualistic view to a collective one while extrapolating on the social concept into the economic system [0].

Critique:
A major criticism of Marxist Feminism equating patriarchy with capitalism is that patriarchy predates capitalism by several thousand years, and that patriarchy can still be seen in communist countries around the world [25].

Another issues is that creating collective groups it devalues the individual, even going as far as ignoring victims and perpetrators that do not fall into the stereotypes of the collective [0].

These collective groups also treat all individual within the group with the same assumptions and stereotypes, which is the very definition of sexism [0].

Allies and enemies:
Marxist, Socialist, and Material feminism are extremely similar, although they have their nuances [23, 26].

Marxism is at odds with Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality and Liberal Feminism’s individualistic views, and the root causes of problems [0].

They believe in a very personal interpretation of empowerment, which is the ability to choose as an individual, and take responsibility for the consequences without interference, including from the state. [1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10].

They concentrate on legal changes to promote equality of opportunity, including to the right to their own property and body, individual autonomy, rights, liberty, independence and diversity for men and women to pursue happiness as they choose (so long as it does not harm others), while simultaneously opposing any forced legal action that promotes inequality [2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14]. However, due to the biological influences outcome equality is not expected as a result [12, 14].

Libertarian feminism encourages “women to become economically self-sufficient; encouraging them to be psychologically independent; publicizing and promoting realistic attitudes toward female competence, achievement, and potential, as well as opposing the abridgement of individual rights by any government on the basis of gender; working toward changing sexist attitudes and behaviors exhibited by individuals” [10] With heavy links to egalitarianism, Christina Hoff Sommers said that Libertarian Feminism has “an aversion to prescribed gender roles: Women should be free to defect from the stereotypes of femininity if they so choose. At the same time, however, it respects the choices of free and self-determining women—when they choose to embrace conventional feminine roles” [12].Definition of Equality:
Equality of opportunity for the individual.

Gender is not purely a social construct, but is influenced by biology.

Root cause of problems:
Legal changes to promote equality of opportunity for men and women. According to the Association of Libertarian Feminists believe that “government is women’s enemy.” [10]

Dates:
From the 1830s

Examples:
Wendy McElroy

Christina Hoff Sommers

Deborah Siegel

Tonie Nathan

The Association of Libertarian Feminist (ALF)

History:
Women fought for the freedom of the black slaves in the US, contributing to all people of colour gaining freedom through the 14th Amendment [17], and with men of colour gaining the right to vote in 1870 in the and 15th Amendment [18]. After seeing the similarities with how women were treated in the late 1800’s to the slaves, the women hoped to be included in the amendment. However, women did not gain the right to vote for another 50 years after the 19th Amendment in 1920. Thus, First Wave Feminism in the US was born out of the abolition of slavery [9].

Critique:
Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality Feminism has been criticised by other types of feminism as being too focused on the individuals ability to make choices. They often make the claim that because some choices are harder than others, it isn’t really a choice at all, implying that women will always take the easy option, especially when faced with a choice that defies current social conventions [1, 3, 4, 5].

Anita Sarkeesian went so far as to say the “individual notion of “empowerment”… erases the reality that some choices that women make have an enormous negative impact on other women’s lives” [5].

Others say it promotes a concept of victim blaming by making individuals face the consequences of their own choices [2].

Due to its long history, this kind of feminism has changed over time. This has caused some scholars to point out that the modern incarnation is somewhat different in tone than its earlier routes [7].

An important criticism of the early form of this type of feminism, is was too tame. This might have contributed to the separation of more extreme versions of feminism, and individual feminists, who felt the state were not taking them seriously or moving quickly enough to address their demands [9].

Allies and enemies:
Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality Feminism has many who oppose their ideology, but also some surprising allies.

Due to the ideological differences First Wave feminism is often at odds with Second and Third Wave Feminists such as Political/ Gender/ Radical, Social, Marxist, and Intersectional varieties of feminism [7, 9, 10, 13]. The root cause of this conflict stems from the interpretation of the term ‘equality’ [15] in which the two factions could be split into 1st Wave’s Individual ‘Opportunity Feminism,’ and 2nd and 3rd Wave’s Collective ‘Outcome Feminism.’ These two concepts are mutually exclusive and thus diametrically opposed to each other.

Due to this conflict and the concept that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ First Wave Feminist finds itself unconventionally allied with Anti-Feminists (who object to 2nd and 3rd Wave Feminist ideology). This is where the 2nd and 3rd Wave arguments of Not All Feminist’s Are Like That (NAFALT), and ‘if you believe in equality you are a feminist’ arise [0]. Many Anti-Feminists share ideology with 1st Wave Feminism, and could call themselves Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality Feminists without any change to their beliefs if they chose too [0].

As First Wave Feminism fights for equality of the genders, and fights against inequality of either sex being disadvantage, Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) often find themselves campaigning for similar legal changes [0].

These allies conflate the 2nd and 3rd Wave Feminists to claim that 1st Wave Feminist is not ‘true’ feminism [0].

Name: Egalitarian Feminism (that’s us!)Alternative names: EgaFem

Description:
Egalitarian Feminism has huge links with Libertarian/ Choice/ Individualist/ Freedom/ Equality Feminism, agreeing with all the beliefs stated above, and accepting the same criticism.

However, what makes Egalitarian Feminism different is the belief that patriarchy (that men hold most of the resources and power) stems from the inequality of the value of the genders. EgaFem believes that male and female’s lives should be equally sacrosanct. Counter intuitively, legal and social changes need to be made to increase the value of men’s lives (reducing their disposability) to the same level of women.

EgaFem believes this will socially encourages women, empowering them to take increased risks, and gain the rewards (and failures) they currently don’t achieve. Thus, smashing the concept of patriarchy in which men earn the majority of the power and resources through risk taking.Definition of Equality:
Equality of opportunity for the individual.

Gender is not purely a social construct, but is influenced by biology.

Root cause of problems:
The legal and social inequality of the value of male and female lives, which discourages women from taking risks and earning the rewards.

Dates:
2014

Examples:
Blaise Wilson

Drew Roan

History:
Egalitarian Feminism was created as a direct backlash to Radical and Intersectional Feminism’s attempts to silence their opposition through legal changes, such as the EU’s Framework for the Promotion of Tolerance [16], which names Anti-Feminism as illegal. The initial idea was born from the realisation that ‘equality’ had multiple definitions, and that 1st Wave Feminism can not only fight against 2nd and 3rd Wave Feminism, but also actively helps victims.

Sunday, 10 January 2016

Caveat: These are the thoughts and ramblings of Blaise Wilson, they do not represent the EgaFem Community as a whole. They are often poorly researched and highly biased. They are useful to start a discussion on a topic. Comments, debate, evidence for and against, and feedback are welcome.

Author: Blaise Wilson

Introduction

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender. And therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system." - Bahar Mustafa, a student union diversity official at Goldsmiths University in London, May 2015, on Facebook [1].

So, I have a number of issues with this. The re-definition of the term ‘racist’ is concerning, especially when I’ve seen similar re-definitions of rape which classifies all ‘penis in vagina’ (PIV) as rape [2] because men have power over women, and as a group women can’t fight men – so sex is always a man forcing himself onto a women because women cannot give meaningful consent (however, this concept has be refuted as being a false rumour spread to discredit radical feminism [3]).

Another problem I have is the collectiveness grouping, lumping everyone of a similar characteristic into one group and then applying rules to that group. This is the actual definition of racist/ sexist / bigotry.

When you start calling all men oppressors and rapists, all women as victims and then add intersectional layers over the top you get a right mess. You get a hierarchy of oppression in which those beneath others can do no wrong against those above them. Because those above them oppress those below and fighting against your oppressors is seen as a good thing. Think Robin Hood.

Are my concerns a ‘slippery slope’ logical fallacy? Or simply the next logical step? We’ve already seen words have their definition changed to suit the Intersectional Feminists and Social Justice Warriors (SJW). What other words are up for grabs? Rape? Theft? Murder?

The concept of grouped oppression is inherently bigoted by stereotyping individuals and treating them by a collective judgement, either as eternal victims or oppressors. This concept says ‘those on the bottom of the oppression list can’t commit a crime against those above them, they can only commit crimes against their peers.’

So, first we need to establish the hierarchy of oppression, work out where everyone sits. Then we can see how this works in theory, then see if this is working in practise with a recent example.

We will assume the hierarchy is based on opportunity due to wealth and education based on groups and ignore wealthy individuals who do not fit into these stereotypes. We’ll also stick to the US and UK Western cultures.

So I was going to pull up a load of evidence and stats, and then remembered this is an opinionated post, based on my personal perspective. So I’ll save myself some time and assume I’m right and crack on with the post. If you disagree, please make that known.

This concept is based on intersectionality [5] in which you combine oppressions.

So, let us give this a go. However, the rich oppressing the poor will be ignored because we are only interested in characteristics of groups not class.

Hierarchy of Oppression

Men oppress Women

Heterosexuals oppress Homosexuality, Bi and A-sexual

The Able oppress the Disabled

White oppresses everyone else (even Asians who statically are better off as a group), but especially blacks. All non-blacks/white are somewhere in between (Hispanics, Arabs, etc)

Citizens oppress Immigrants

Cis genders oppress Transgender/ Gender Fluid

For example an Able Cis White Heterosexual Men within his own country (citizen) is the pinnacle of privilege, the least oppressed.

This becomes harder when you start to intersect groups, because it is hard to tell the relevant oppression between groups.

Do all men oppress all women? What about a black/non-white immigrant men versus a white female citizen?

I’m going to have a bit of fun with this, cos I’m a geek who loves her job. I’m going to apply some Decision Analysis to this. Basically I’m going to assign each category with a number. The lower the number the more oppressed you are, the higher the more privileged. A sensitivity analysis can be done to find how susceptible to error the numbers are and provide some validity, but that won’t be done this time round.

Let us start with the simplest system and see how that goes.

Weighting: Simple

Category

Characteristic

Score

Gender

Men

2

Women

1

Race

White

3

Non-White

2

Black

1

Aliment (inc mental)

Able

2

Disabled

1

Sexuality

Heterosexual

2

Homosexual, Bi, A-sexual

1

Country

Citizen

2

Immigrant

1

Gender Identity

Cis

2

Transgender

1

We’ll give this a test.

At the top, the least oppression, most privileged of the hierarchy is the Male, White, Able, Heterosexual, Citizen, Cis Gendered.

Male, White, Able, Heterosexual, Citizen, and Cis Gendered: 13/13

At the bottom we have:

Women, Black, Disabled, Homosexual, Immigrant, and Transgender: 6/13

And everyone else is in between.

In doing this, it became apparent this isn’t a very accurate method in some areas, for example the ‘aliment’ area clearly should be sub-categorised into physical and mental and the severity of the aliment. However, this first pass was useful. Further iterations might include more accurate numbers based on real wage statistics for improved accuracy, and might have more extreme numbers as a result.

Victims

My biggest issue with this concept is it wipes out victims. By the argument that a minority female can’t be sexist or racists against her perceived oppressors you are on dangerous ground. Suddenly everyone is a class of oppression/privilege, and judged solely on the characteristics they have no (or very little) control over.

Under this concept women can’t rape men. Women can’t commit domestic abuse against men as to do so is simply them fighting against their oppressors. Where does it stop?

Let’s compare their scores on this simple scoring system. I’ve had to make some assumptions that they are both more likely to be able bodied, heterosexual and cis gendered.

Women, White, Able, Heterosexual, Citizen, Cis = 12/13

Man, Non-white, Able, Heterosexual, Immigrant, Cis = 11/13

As you can see, these white women are more privileged than these non-white men. A case could be made that the scale between citizen and immigrant should be increased, as a citizen is so much more privileged than an immigrant. If so, this oppression disparity would increase. If the immigrants in question were black rather than non-white it would also increase the disparity, making the sexual assault of white women simply an oppressed black man fighting against his oppressors.

As a real life example, the disgusting coordinated attacks on women by non-white males, many of whom are allegedly immigrates on New Year’s Eve of 2016 in Cologne, Germany [6].

As demonstrated by the appalling lack of response and outcry from Intersectional Feminists it appears that white female citizens oppress these male immigrants, and thus cannot be raped by them.

Instead there are calls to shame and silence those who speak out against the non-whites raping white women. The SJW and Intersectional Feminists calling people racist to shut them up – effectively ignoring the victims of this horrendous crime.

Where does this slippery slope end? Can a transgender, homosexual, disabled, black, female immigrant do anything wrong? Should we all be judged by our group characteristics rather than our individual actions and ability?

A stakeholder is "a person, group or organization that has interest or concern in an organization." [1]

These are the people that should be taken into account, listened too, and considered when making any decision. Such considerations might include how a decision might impact a stakeholder, or what the stakeholder might think of something, or how the stakeholder will influence and interact with the decision.

Not all stakeholders are equal. Although they should all be considered, and some consulted, some stakeholder's are more important than others. However, a stakeholder is anyone with an interest or concern, not only those who agree with you but also those who oppose you.

When stakeholder's desires conflict, a trade-off analysis should be done to determine what compromises, if any, could be made. Prioritising the stakeholders into importance helps do this. For example, women may be negatively impacted in the short term, but this may be acceptable if they are significant benefited in the long term.

There will often be unique stakeholders that are impacted in certain decisions, and so a new stakeholder analysis should be done for every decision made to ensure everyone has been considered. For example, when discussing issues of rape a unique stakeholder to consider are rape victims, and perpetrators of rape.

Yes, this means considering perpetrators and the impact a decision has on them. People who commit the most heinous of crimes are still human, and thus are still worthy of having the base principles applied to them. Making a decision that benefits the victim, but may cause such devastation to the perpetrator that they have no choice but to become worse (e.g. can't get a job afterwards and must turn to crime to survive) may not be a great decision to take forward as it may cause further victims in future.

The first step it to identify the stakeholders, then try to understand them and their needs.

EgaFem's Campaign Stakeholders

We have identified some individuals and groups that might be interested in EgaFem's campaigns. This list is not exhaustive and may change over time.

Stakeholders can comment, input and even support or disagree with individual campaigns without being part of the EgaFem community, nor supporting or disagreeing with EgaFem as a whole. Their actions towards specific campaigns should only apply to that specific campaign. In other words an individual might support campaign x but disagree with and stand against campaign y. And neither stance should be taken as endorsement or opposition to EgaFem as an organisation unless the stakeholder has explicitly stated this.

Stakeholder Priorities

The priorities of stakeholders will change depending on the campaign or decision. But the principles of EgaFem will always take precedence within any decision, over the desires of stakeholders - even EgaFem's Director.

However, generally those who will be most impacted by a decision (e.g. victims and perpetrators) will be given the highest consideration. The EgaFem Community will also always be a highly considered stakeholder (which is the main benefit of joining the community).

Individual influential stakeholders may be targeted and invited for input, however they are under no obligation to contribute to the discussion.

Decisions are made by the EgaFem Director, after research and input from stakeholders. They also take on the responsibility of that decision and are the main risk holder.

These lists are not ordered in priority.

Identified Stakeholder Groups
EgaFem Community
Victims
Perpetrators
Website readers
Men's Rights Activists (MRA)
Feminists (all types)
Anti-Feminists ( all types)
Honey Badger Brigade
Men in the short term (3 years or less)
Men in the long term (more than 4 years)
Women in the short term (3 years or less)
Women in the long term (more than 4 years)
Transgender
Humanists
Egalitarians
MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)
A Voice for Men
Spiked
Breitbart
Feminist Organisations (all)
UN Women
Everyday Sexism
#WomenAgainstFeminism
Women Against Feminism UK
Feministing
Ms. Magazine
Bitch Media
Jezebel
The F-Word
GamerGate (GG)
Anti-GamerGate (aggGG)
Governments (specifically UK and US)
EU
UN
NATO
The Media
Suggestions welcome…